1. Introduction is lacking proper literature review. Research on wind turbines affected by hurricanes should be included. Also, the authors should describe at least one incidence of wind turbines being affected by strong hurricane winds.
2. IEC is defined in Section 2, but abbreviation is already used in Section 1.
3. What is the source of data in Figure 1? Where are those measurements coming from?
4. Line 110. Please expand more on this argument of obtaining good results for wrong reasons.
5. Line 114. What does RMW stand for?
6. There is no need to specifically have Section 2.2.1. That material can be part of Section 2.2. without adding new subsection.
7. Figure 4. Either the name of this island or the coordinates are needed.
8. In Table 1, what is wind speed in the first column? Is that range related to 1-minute average wind speed or 3-second gusts? Based on discussion after Table 1, it seems these values are neither of the above. Please clarify.
9. Line 199. What is gust duration for this 72 m/s wind speed? Is that a 3-s gust?
10. Definitions around Line 220. What is the gust duration in these definitions and how would that be affected by having anemometers of different acquisition frequencies?
11. Figure 11 is of very low quality. Labels and numbers are not readable even at a zoom level above 100%.
12. Equation 12. Functions, such as exp, should not be italic. Only mathematical symbols should be italic.
13. Resolution of other figures should also be improved.
14. Sections 3.2 and 3.3 should be combined and given a more general name.
15. Figures 12 and 13, what are the units of the color bar?
16. The entire discussion about surface drag coefficients seems out of place because the second half of the study did not properly capitalize on it. It seems that this could have been two different manuscripts, one on the surface drag coefficient and another on hurricane risk assessment modelling. The present manuscript presents both but in an uncomplete way.
17. Risk is defined as the product of hazard, exposure, and vulnerability. Nothing is said about vulnerability curves. Can the authors comment on this issue. For example, Bouchard and Romanic (2023; doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-023-05843-z) proposed a vulnerability curve for wind turbines affected by tornadoes. Could this or similar vulnerability curves be used in your study?
18. How can project developers and decision makers use the results of this study during planning and managing of offshore wind turbines in the Gulf of Mexico?
19. Inconsistent referencing style in the reference section.

In this article authors have investigated the challenges in converting wind speeds between Saffir-Simpson hurricane scale and IEC design classes due to the differences in height and gust durations. Authors have also quantified the risk associated with hurricane wind for wind turbine in the Gulf of Mexico. The method used in the article is scientifically sound. The article can be accepted for publication after addressing the minor comments below: 

1. Line 25: Any recent data or example scenario that can be included to back up "significant potential to exceed design limits" here?

2. Line 28: Please include some references to "the open literature" 

3. Line 46: "the conversion is wind speed dependent". This sentence comes across as the conversion is only dependent on wind speed. Although mentioned later, it would be good to iterate here as well that the conversion also depends on turbulence characteristics

4. Figure 1: What is the source of these data points? Powell et al. (2003)? Would be good to mention in the figure caption. Also, are these two examples coming from two locations?

5. Line 80: Could you please provide more explanation based on Figure 2? What is the most important take from this figure?

6. Figures 8-10: Looks like X-axis values are missing. 

7. Figure 11: Hard to read. Needs re-formatting. 

8. Line 334: What are the limitations of this model?

9. Line 429: What is the basis of 500,000-year simulation?